United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1995] UKEAT 148_95_2302

Appeal No. EAT/148/95

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 23 February 1995

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SMITH

MR J H GALBRAITH CB

MRS E HART

---

MR N F SHAW          APPELLANT

YORKSHIRE TELEVISION          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE           APPELLANT

NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT


 


MRS JUSTICE SMITH: This is an appeal from an interlocutory decision of an Industrial Tribunal Chairman at Leeds, whereby he refused a request for discovery of documents and further and better particulars in the Appellant's claim for compensation for unfair dismissal.

The Appellant was dismissed by his employers, Yorkshire Television, on 4 February 1994. He had been employed by them as a Film Certification and Compliance Officer for some 20 years. He alleges that he was dismissed because he had been subjected to a knife attack by another member of staff and that this had caused embarrassment to his employers. The employers contend that he was dismissed for breach of his duty of fidelity by engaging in business on his own account in conflict with the interests of the employer. The matter is due to be heard on 27 & 28 February, that is in a few days time.

On 10 February 1995, the Appellant sought an order for discovery of two documents: a psychoanalyst's report on a man name Mr SH who is the person who allegedly attacked the Appellant with a knife, and an internal memorandum written by the Appellant himself to one Ali Rasheed on 1 December 1993. In addition, he requested further and better particulars of a substantial number of matters arising out of documents disclosed by the Respondents in preparation for the hearing. The Chairman refused the request for particulars and discovery, saying this:

"This case appears to have been sufficiently particularised. No orders are necessary."

The Appellant renewed his request but the Chairman refused again in the same terms. Accordingly this appeal comes before us for consideration on paper. The Respondents by their solicitors have opposed the appeal on the basis that the Chairman was right to say that the discovery and particulars were not necessary.

The power of an Industrial Tribunal to require the supply of further and better particulars of contentions and the power to grant discovery of documents are contained in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 of the Industrial Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993. Rule 4(1) provides:

"4.-(1) A tribunal may, on the application of a party made either by notice to the Secretary or at the hearing of the originating application, or of its own motion-

(a) require a party to furnish in writing to the person specified by the tribunal further particulars of the grounds on which that party relies and of any facts and contentions relevant thereto.

(b) require one party to grant to another such discovery or inspection (including the taking of copies) of documents as might be granted by a county court."

Order 14 of the County Court Rules provides that such discovery shall be granted as is necessary for the fair disposal of the matter.

We have looked at the requests for further and better particulars. It is plain to us that the requests are really matters of evidence. They comprise questions which would be more appropriately put to witnesses in cross-examination. We have read the Respondent's notice of appeal and we consider that the Chairman was quite right when he said that the matter had been adequately particularised.

So far as discovery is concerned, it appears to us that the Chairman took a proper approach when he said that the discovery of documents sought was not necessary for the fair disposal of the matter. One of the documents sought, the psychoanalyst's report, is of doubtful relevance and would in any event be confidential. We can see no basis upon which it could be said that such a document was necessary to the fair disposal of this matter. The memorandum sought, is a document which the Appellant himself wrote and we can not see any basis upon which it could be said that disclosure of such a document was necessary.

Accordingly we see no basis upon which it could be said that the Chairman has misdirected himself in law. We only have the power in interfere if he has done so. Accordingly, it being our conclusion that he has not, this appeal is dismissed.